Editor:

In 1961, Eisenhower warned about the influence the military-industrial complex had over defense spending. How prophetic it was!

The U.S. military budget for 2025 is $852.2 billion, up 27.2 billion from 2024. Russia's is $142 billion; China's is $245 billion. There are presently 750 U.S. military bases around the world. Russia has between 26 and 40. The U.K., France and Turkey have between four and 10. China, India, Japan, and Germany have between one and three each.

The U.S. has 71 nuclear submarines, of which 14 are in the Ohio class, ballistic missile-carrying subs capable at any time and from anywhere of destroying countries. 

The question becomes why do we need all of this money allocated for military use when a few submarines can deter any country from attacking the U.S. for fear of annihilation?

Can this money be spent in a more positive way of which one can suggest hundreds?

Edward Fried 
West Chatham

Editor:

Each town on Cape Cod possesses unique and distinct qualities. What all require, in our peculiar seasonal economy, is a balance between residential and economic viability. Achieving a satisfactory, functioning balance for each of our 15 towns is a precarious matter. 

Harwich is confronted with a particularly vexing choice: setting a precedent that the highest and best use of property is residential. While this may offer the owner the highest financial return, I believe that it represents a trade-off that sacrifices our sense of community. 

Our ancestors understood this well when Harwich was settled. They had a vision for the type of community they desired, and they built to that vision. The vision included a business district, residential area, usually a library, a school, parks, boat launches, inns, taverns and more. We are now experiencing what occurs when there is no vision. Harwich suffered a terrific economic downturn when the subtle balance of retail, accommodations and restaurants was ignored. Let us step up to the challenge of creating a vision that maintains a balanced sense of community for each of the Harwich villages, especially Harwich Port and West Harwich. From that vision, we can plan what we want our community to look like. What we imagine, we can plan. We must not allow our business district to become a luxury housing monoculture. We need to be clear about the medium- and long-term ramifications of this decision. We cannot afford to lose “why” people want to come here. We cannot afford to lose the people that work in and for our town. We cannot be a community if all the residents are part-time visitors in luxury housing. 

Community is a balance. Our community needs a vision so we can plan. Help us rise to the challenge to envision, and maintain, a proper balance in Harwich. 

Sandra Wycoff
West Harwich

Editor:

Regarding the Aug. 14 response to my July 31 opinion letter, I don’t understand how not wanting to die or get hurt while driving, walking or bicycling on Queen Anne Road could be construed as elitist, sinister or racist.

The proposed all-rental mega-development known as Pine Oaks Village 4 (five times the average size of the other housing developments currently being built on Cape Cod) would bring a 23 percent increase in traffic to the area. This is before the other two housing developments (all within three miles of each other) are factored in. 

Resident concerns go well beyond the lack of sidewalks. The writer believes that the town should plan for and fund sidewalks, but the town couldn’t put in sidewalks even if they wanted to. There isn’t the land for it. It would have to be taken by eminent domain. Should the residents of Queen Anne Road be forced to give up their land so that a handful of developers can collect rent in perpetuity while endangering current residents as well as their own tenants?

People have been maimed, paralyzed and killed on Queen Anne Road. To diminish our concerns as NIMBYism is to ignore the facts and expert testimony.

Sherri Stockdale 
Harwich

Editor:

I wasn’t familiar with the Chatham Water Department problems as they relate to billing for irrigation systems connected to town water until I watched the Aug. 12 select board meeting. Clearly, two glaring management problems need to be addressed:

#1: Why adopt regulations if you won’t enforce them?

I agree with these questions a caller asked: how much money has been assessed in fines for this problem, and how much money has been collected in response to those fines? It’s been over 3.5 years and taxpayers deserve answers. 

It must be common knowledge among those who have not installed a second meter on their irrigation system that use town water: it’s the “Wild, Wild West” here in Chatham. Keep on doing whatever you want.

#2: Why did we spend $15,000 to find out who’s cheating? 

I was an IT professional for 30-plus years, and I am certain identifying these culprits is not a complicated undertaking. For the DPW director to say “for staff to try to do that manually would have been exhaustive” is absurd. It’s a shame the town manager did not recognize that and, instead, spent $15,000 of taxpayer dollars on a contract she should have been able to handle in-house. 

Is there no one in Ms. Goldsmith’s IT department, nor a competent Excel user on staff, who could derive these answers? Do we have a hiring/personnel-skillset problem, too?

Janine Scott
Chatham

Editor:

In response to last week’s letter “Housing Is A Natural Right,” how is carving up 33 acres, disrupting an ecosystem "at its most benign, elitist; and at its most sinister, racist." Huh? Absolutely ludicrous. It's an insult to the generations of hardworking people from North Harwich.

Nick Holt
North Harwich

Editor:

A friend of mine in Italy has been studying European democracies vs. the rise of populism in Hungary, Germany and elsewhere. He wrote this piece: "...with Europe in mind, but then realized that the 'disease' of populism is the same in the U.S. as well. Populism is dangerous because most wars are born from populism." I thought your readers would find it instructive. 

Bill James
Orleans

Editor:

I was quite put off by the tone of Ms. Davis’ recent letter to the editor defending her absence from the scheduled select board meeting. Firstly, I would expect more professionalism by one of our elected leaders, but more importantly more details on a meeting with our governor — what was the primary purpose of the function? How many other towns/leaders were present? How much alone time did she get with the governor and what specific topics (pressing issues) were discussed? If one of our town leaders has an opportunity for a sit-down with the leader of our state, I’d like to see a bit more transparency. Our select board members do get paid for their service to the community, so if you’re going to miss a meeting for “Chatham business,” I for one would like to know what "policy talk" was covered and what the governor said in response instead of an adolescent retort dripping in sarcasm. We deserve better.

David Mott
Chatham

Editor: 

We live at 30 and 36 Kent Place. What does "Place" mean, in terms of a road?

It means a road that isn't a throughway. In other words, a dead-end road. At one point, Kent Place was a dead-end road, blocked off on the northeast by a fence somewhere between 36 Kent Place and the current Chatham Sign Shop building. The fence prevented the opportunity for every vehicle to pick up more speed than is safe. It also prevented the opportunity for 18-wheelers, in particular, to rush past our front yards. Not having the fence means that cars and pedestrians are sharing a very narrow roadway, endangering adults, children and pets in the way.

Limiting cars on the street to residents and guests will avoid that problem continuing to exist. While trucks making deliveries to Main Street businesses would have to again use Main Street, the fact is that trucks, and especially 18-wheelers, belong on Main Street, which is wider, where crosswalks slow them down and where there is a police presence.

We applaud the efforts of the traffic safety committee and the town manager to consider what to do with our little lane for the benefit of its homeowners, unsuspecting renters, and the many walkers and bikers who enjoy the quiet charm of the lane.

We encourage the traffic committee to return Kent Place to what it was for the sake of safety and the experience of strolling it serenely without fear or risk.

Don and Jamie Chalker
Bob and Joanne Goodman
Chatham

Editor:

It is with great sadness that we mourn the passing of the No. 1 gentleman in Chatham whose kindness and caring knew no bounds.

David Burns M.D. took his profession seriously as well as his religion. He went to daily Mass for years and years. When we first met he would bring his black dog sitting in the front seat of his car to church.

David had a gentle, intelligent spirit, always smiling eyes looking after other people. His wife of many years developed a debilitating condition which made him devote his life to her wellbeing and cared for her 24/7 as was his calling.

He wrote a book about his days as a family doctor in upstate New York called "Take a deep breath." Well worth a read. Only in his 50s, he had a severe heart attack which made him have to leave his practice at the hospital. His description of the event was perfect. But he was confident of good care because he had trained everyone in the hospital. He was in good care but sadly had to give up his practice.

What a privilege it was for all of us in the writing group to get to know him and hear his life-long stories as a country doctor in upstate New York. Our only hope that he can finally enjoy himself on his own terms at long last. He always did the best he knew how and left many admiring friends from his final years in Chatham. He will always be missed.

Fleur Feighan Jones
Chatham